Is Coherence Always Beautiful?
Is Coherence always vital? Can destruction also be vital? Can Coherence be destructive?
It has struck me that we could say that it is through our perception of beauty that we recognize Coherence. We find the movement from what David Bohm called the Implicate Order; the creation of what-is; what is implicit becoming tacit; as we perceive the natural world and its vitality. We recognize this as beauty.
In the rush to fit the world to our Patterns of Thought we have long theorized that our perception of beauty is somehow a recognition of discrete Laws of Nature. “Laws” we attempt to fit into our conceptions of the logical, therefore, turning them into put-into-words mandates that must be accepted and obeyed. We have organized human behavior along these lines, following mandates via internal and external coercion.
This has always served as a path into incoherence as we literalize everything. Turn everything into words and expect words to be foundational to the experience of being.
Navigating Coherence brings a very different viewpoint and methodology into play. Instead of rushing to replace experience with words, we pause and look to see what is missed when we short-circuit perception in this way and rush into projection.
As we open ourselves to what makes itself clear to us, even if only in fleeting glimpses, we discover what is necessary.
Art, for me specifically Painting and Music, holds practices that lead us to find ways to participate in creation; to metaphorically, and in some ways actually – though never literally – enter into the movement from Implicate to Tacit. Not in an attempt to impose “structure” or impose “meaning.” As we open ourselves to what makes itself clear to us, even if only in fleeting glimpses, we discover what is necessary. We discover that what-is cannot be any other way. We follow these practices while being guided by a sense that what-is is always extremely specific. It is at the same time complete and unique, not vaguely so, but rigorously so, while at the same time, rhyming with Everything on multiple levels in a kind of Fractal Poetic Reality. Rhymes cascade through our awareness while never reducing the is-ness of what we are attending to.
Philip Guston talked about this as a search for limits. We may begin by relishing our “Freedom” to do whatever “we like.” As a work develops room for choice narrows and ultimately collapses. This itself is a rhyme with the way Quantum Potential collapses into perceived reality. It is at the moment when our “choices” vanish that we become truly free, participating in creation.
Treating inquiry as if the only possible way to attend to questions is either by attacking the questioner or defending one’s habitual reactions leaves no room for any opening into Coherence.
Try to discuss* this with any “lover of Freedom!™” and you won’t get very far. Their “self-evident truths” do not allow any inquiry into such a radical and subversive view! I would argue, if forced into it, that the entire Edifice of Thought in which their world view is grounded, supporting its own continuation at all costs, has forced them into a deeply incoherent place and left them with little or no capacity to extricate themselves. Certainly not until they are willing to suspend their customary reactive/projective patterns. None of this will make a dent with them which is why I have no time for such arguments or discussions. Treating inquiry as if the only possible way to attend to questions is either by attacking the questioner or defending one’s habitual reactions leaves no room for any opening into Coherence.
Argument and discussion are inherently incoherent and can only destroy coherence, never create it.
What has struck me recently is the way Guston’s necessity connects with the fact-ness of what-is and that what we consider beautiful; not by following any “Cannon of The Beautiful;” but as we a contemplate how our organism responds to what is before us as cleanly as possible and with as much freshness of outlook as we can muster; we find beauty is evidence of Coherence.
It can be easy to hear or read “Coherence” and jump to substitute “clear.” Coherence is clear, when we can perceive it, but it is not contained within a classification like clarity. Especially when, as within any dualistic approach what is meant by clarity is oversimplification. This mirrors the difference between organic beauty and the aesthetics of mechanistic reduction.
This piece began with a series of questions:
Is Coherence always vital? Can destruction also be vital? Can Coherence be destructive?
It may appear that these questions have not been addressed. There has been no “rebuttal” stating how and why destruction cannot be vital or coherence destructive.
I suggest that if we can step outside of argumentation as a “method for finding solutions;” a method that has failed us and continues to drive us over a cliff; we might just sit with these questions and get a sense for how coherence and incoherence appear or disappear as we look at their implications.
Doing so upends the expectation that an “expert” will guide us through their “reasoning” and then tell us how and what there is to be discovered. Such an approach must always leave us flatfooted. Off balance, waiting to find some way past our own confusion and our unease at being put into the position of being a consumer of facts and a vessel for opinions.
I ask you to hold these questions without pushing for conclusions. Let an internal consensus arise. Feel whether it is solid or if it remains fragile. Does a shift in one direction make a difference? When it falls apart does that scare us? What do we do with this fear?
Ratio asks that we turn ourselves into a scale, weighing “options” and “deciding on outcomes” and “seeking justice.” Does this actually fit our conditions? Do any of these “strategies” work?
Navigating Coherence is a very different approach. It does not demand anything. It recognizes that outcomes are not linked to desire in the way our addiction to Power would like us to believe. It does not ask us to seek anything since the very act of narrowing our perceptions to match our desires cannot help but skew our perceptions and blind us with projections.
Coherence, as a “thing” can be elusive. Especially since the whole concept has been ignored and swept aside by business-as-usual. But; when we do encounter it, start to get a feel for how it operates; we begin to recognize it. This process involves deep changes in the way our minds operate. We can feel this while it’s happening. There is a palpable bending of perception, a pressure in our heads that may be unfamiliar. It’s not unpleasant, and once we begin to recognize what’s happening, it is exciting….
As he so often did, David Bohm struck the heart of the distinction between discussion and dialogue by looking at the roots of the words. “Discussion” derives from the same root as “percussion.” “Cussion,” referring to hitting, as with a hammer in an act of breaking. This is a form of violence upon the matter-at-hand.
“Dialogue” is a shared inquiry into the matter-at-hand. A holding and an act of perception within an approach that takes into account the limits and the need for Proprioception. We cannot Navigate Coherence without exploring this awareness.
Dialogue covers a range of scales. We cultivate internal dialogue as a way to begin integrating our selves. We enter into dialogue with others to practice integration and to find a way to be part of a wider whole. We practice Art and Kraft to participate in dialogue with our world and connect our inner states with actions that further Coherence and counter Incoherence.